LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  May 2011

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE May 2011

Subject:

Re: Why We Needed Bin Laden Dead

From:

Stuart Newman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 9 May 2011 15:00:31 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (270 lines)

Content endorsed. Scientific justification: to neutralize unscientific maundering 
about human nature.

My Reaction to Osama bin Laden's Death

By Noam Chomsky, Reader Supported News

07 May 11, http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/268-35/5859-noam-
chomsky-my-reaction-to-osama-bin-ladens-death

It's increasingly clear that the operation was a planned assassination, multiply 
violating elementary norms of international law. There appears to have been 
no attempt to apprehend the unarmed victim, as presumably could have been 
done by 80 commandos facing virtually no opposition - except, they claim, 
from his wife, who lunged towards them. In societies that profess some 
respect for law, suspects are apprehended and brought to fair trial. I 
stress "suspects." In April 2002, the head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, informed 
the press that after the most intensive investigation in history, the FBI could 
say no more than that it "believed" that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, 
though implemented in the UAE and Germany. What they only believed in April 
2002, they obviously didn't know 8 months earlier, when Washington dismissed 
tentative offers by the Taliban (how serious, we do not know, because they 
were instantly dismissed) to extradite bin Laden if they were presented with 
evidence - which, as we soon learned, Washington didn't have. Thus Obama 
was simply lying when he said, in his White House statement, that "we quickly 
learned that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by al Qaeda."

Nothing serious has been provided since. There is much talk of bin 
Laden's "confession," but that is rather like my confession that I won the 
Boston Marathon. He boasted of what he regarded as a great achievement.

There is also much media discussion of Washington's anger that Pakistan didn't 
turn over bin Laden, though surely elements of the military and security forces 
were aware of his presence in Abbottabad. Less is said about Pakistani anger 
that the US invaded their territory to carry out a political assassination. Anti-
American fervor is already very high in Pakistan, and these events are likely to 
exacerbate it. The decision to dump the body at sea is already, predictably, 
provoking both anger and skepticism in much of the Muslim world.

We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed 
at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the 
Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's, and he is not 
a "suspect" but uncontroversially the "decider" who gave the orders to commit 
the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it 
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (quoting the 
Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of 
thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, 
the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

There's more to say about [Cuban airline bomber Orlando] Bosch, who just 
died peacefully in Florida, including reference to the "Bush doctrine" that 
societies that harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves and 
should be treated accordingly. No one seemed to notice that Bush was calling 
for invasion and destruction of the US and murder of its criminal president.

Same with the name, Operation Geronimo. The imperial mentality is so 
profound, throughout western society, that no one can perceive that they are 
glorifying bin Laden by identifying him with courageous resistance against 
genocidal invaders. It's like naming our murder weapons after victims of our 
crimes: Apache, Tomahawk ... It's as if the Luftwaffe were to call its fighter 
planes "Jew" and "Gypsy."

There is much more to say, but even the most obvious and elementary facts 
should provide us with a good deal to think about.



On Mon, 9 May 2011 16:47:53 +0200, Michael Balter 
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>No endorsement of this content is implied. But worth reading.
>
>MB
>
>http://chronicle.com/article/Why-We-Needed-Bin-Laden-Dead/127404/?
sid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en
>
>May 5, 2011
>Why We Needed Bin Laden Dead Revenge as a biological imperative
>[image: Why We Needed Bin Laden Dead 1]
>
>Chris Kleponis, Agence France-Presse, Getty Images
>
>People celebrate the announcement of the death of Osama bin Laden at the
>White House in Washington, May 2.
>Enlarge Image<http://chronicle.com/article/Why-We-Needed-Bin-Laden-
Dead/127404/?sid=cr&utm_source=cr&utm_medium=en#>
>
>By David P. Barash and Judith Eve Lipton
>
>"Ding-dong. The witch is dead!" "Which old witch?" We all know the answer:
>that bin Laden witch. And who did it? Jubilant crowds in Washington, New
>York City, and elsewhere knew that, too, as they chanted "U.S.A., U.S.A.!"
>
>For all our personal abhorrence of violence, we shared some of their relief.
>To be sure, Osama's demise brings attendant risks, not least the prospect of
>retaliation from Al Qaeda and its sympathizers, furthering yet another
>rejuvenated cycle of killing. But there are gains as well: getting rid of a
>genuine malefactor who threatened not just the West, but also the peace of
>the world; making it clear that innocent Americans cannot be attacked with
>impunity (thereby reinforcing, it might be hoped, a kind of nonnuclear
>deterrence); and�not least�insulating the Obama administration against
>claims of being weak or half-hearted in defending the country.
>
>But as for the high-minded claims about "justice," we're not so sure. More
>likely, something deeper, more primitive and potentially more troubling
>motivates the near-universal glee (at least in the United States) at bin
>Laden's death. Scholars since Plato have argued endlessly about the meaning
>of justice, and will doubtless continue to do so. Increasingly, however, a
>biological perspective suggests that the craving for justice is intimately
>tied to another cross-cultural universal: the demand for revenge.
>
>It's an old dance�denying the latter while insisting on the former�whereas
>in fact, a yearning for revenge, or something very much like it, has a
>well-established evolutionary pedigree. At its heart is what might be called
>"passing the pain along": Victims respond to their distress by victimizing
>someone else, when possible, of course, the initial perpetrator. It's the
>original Three R's: retaliation (immediate tit for tat), revenge (payback
>after a delay, and often magnified in intensity), and redirected aggression
>(taking it out on a third party, often an innocent bystander).
>
>The underlying biology of the Three R's has become increasingly clear. After
>being attacked�like America was on 9/11�victims suffer "subordination
>stress," a physiological syndrome that includes hypertension, increased
>cortisone secretion and other adrenal effects, reduced sex-hormone levels,
>and possible ulcers. Of particular significance is that when such victims
>avail themselves of the opportunity to get back at their victimizer, their
>stress is substantially alleviated. In short, they minister to their own
>distress by passing their pain on to someone else. That has been found for
>captive rats, free-living baboons, and also *Homo sapiens.*
>
>Even as the underlying physiology of the Three R's has become increasingly
>clear, another question emerges: Why? Why should natural selection have
>designed so many organisms to respond to injury by causing yet more injury?
>(This question is especially acute, incidentally, in cases of redirected
>aggression, which, for all its serious mayhem, brings to mind the old Three
>Stooges routine, in which Moe hits Larry who turns around and slugs Curly.)
>The answer appears to be that in any social species, individuals are
>exquisitely sensitive to a variant on Lenin's famous question: Who, whom?
>Who has done what to whom? And has he or she gotten away with it?
>
>Once one has been successfully attacked, not only has that individual
>suffered an immediate cost (injury plus likely loss of whatever resource may
>have precipitated the attack), but he or she also runs the risk of losing
>social standing. Animal studies confirm that in the aftermath of an attack,
>if victims refrain from responding�if they neither retaliate, redirect
>aggression, nor get revenge�they are then more likely to be subsequently
>attacked by others in their group. It seems, therefore, that passing along
>one's pain is a way of signaling,"I may have been victimized this time, but
>don't get the wrong idea: I'm not a patsy." If so, then natural selection
>could well have engineered subordination stress and the widespread tendency
>to diminish it by retaliating, redirecting, and/or revenging as a means of
>salvaging as much as possible from a bad situation. There is, accordingly, a
>certain cruel logic to the Three R's. As Mario Puzo put it in *The
>Godfather,*"Accidents don't happen to people who take accidents as a
>personal insult."
>
>Note: Just because revenge appears to be natural and sometimes even
>functional does not mean that it is laudable. But when people speak, for
>example, in highfalutin terms about seeing justice done, they may well be
>saying less about balancing the cosmic scales than about balancing their own
>physiological stress, as well as righting an unconscious perception of their
>own social imbalance. That, we suspect, is the real redress people seek when
>passing along their pain after having been aggrieved ... but naked revenge
>is unseemly, so we call it the pursuit of justice instead.
>
>"Justice begins with compassion and caring," wrote the philosopher Robert C.
>Solomon, "but it also involves, right from the start, such 'negative'
>emotions as envy, jealousy, indignation, anger, and resentment, a keen sense
>of having been personally cheated or neglected, and the desire to get even."
>It is payback with a purpose. In large measure, the quest for justice
>emerges from the pain of injustice. What, then, is punishment?
>
>Some see punishment as the embodiment of justice itself, not some sort of
>bio-psycho-social expediency; hence, to justify the punitive impulse as
>serving deterrence, enhancing social safety, or responding to physiological,
>as well as evolutionary, influences is to demean with trite practicality an
>act that is ethically pure and valid unto itself. Crime requires punishment;
>justice is the punishment of injustice. As John Stuart Mill wrote in his
>classic, *Utilitarianism,* "We do not call anything wrong unless we mean to
>imply that a person ought to be punished in some way or other for doing it."
>
>And punishment implies pain. The same powerful forces that demand revenge
>urge that only the pain of others can allay our own distress, that only
>someone else's suffering can soak up our blood. We dearly wish it were not
>true, but the likelihood is that natural selection is at the root of most
>demands for punishment: It acts "proximally," or directly, via subordination
>stress, as well as "adaptively," via the evolutionary payoff of announcing
>one's self as capable of inflicting painful payback upon whose who have
>harmed us. The yearning to exact a toll on the wrongdoers is so powerful and
>widespread that one might even equate the degree of civilization in a
>society with the extent to which pain-passing is administered by civil
>authority rather than by the aggrieved party. Thus, a reason for having
>police, laws, and prisons (and even executioners) is to prevent wronged and
>vengeful people from taking the law into their own hands.
>
>"Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord," not so much to legitimize
>vengeance per se as to reassure those who have been "done wrong" that 
their
>need for violent revenge will eventually be satisfied.
>
>According to H.L. Mencken, there is an abiding pleasure that comes from
>inflicting pain on wrongdoers, a relief and release that lies at the heart
>of punishment in general, and of capital punishment in particular. There is,
>nonetheless, something uniquely dismaying in the exorbitant glee shown by so
>many Americans in the immediate aftermath of bin Laden's death, just as
>there was in the celebration by Al Qaeda sympathizers after 9/11, and in the
>oafs and thugs who revel in TV reports of a state-sanctioned execution.
>Mencken maintained that crime victims and members of society at large are
>concerned only indirectly with deterring other criminals when they call for
>the death penalty. The thing they crave primarily is the satisfaction of
>seeing the criminal actually before them suffer as he made them suffer. What
>they want is the peace of mind that goes with the feeling that accounts are
>squared. Until they get that satisfaction, they are in a state of emotional
>tension, and hence unhappy. The yearning is not noble, but it is universal.
>
>As biologically influenced universals go, pain-passing in general (whether
>manifested as retaliation, redirected aggression, or revenge) is deeply
>troubling, in a way that other such universals (for example, metabolizing,
>reproducing, sleeping) are not.
>
>Thus, the Three R's emphasize the disconnect between what is "natural" and
>what is morally desirable. Although many ethical systems legitimize
>retaliation, if only as a form of self-defense, even that form of payback is
>discouraged by the better angels of many religions, like, for instance,
>Christianity. The more we understand the biological underpinnings of the
>Three R's, the more can we understand why turning the other cheek is so
>difficult (to err is human, to forgive, supine?). But that doesn't make
>retaliation admirable.
>
>Redirected aggression and revenge deserve even greater condemnation, if 
only
>because the former aims at innocent bystanders and the latter has been
>responsible for unending cycles of violent retribution, a history of horrors
>that truly sapient *Homo* ought someday to outgrow.
>
>"My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die!" Myriad
>moviegoers thrilled (and laughed) to those lines in the film *The Princess
>Bride.* But relatively few are likely to recall this morphing of Montoya's
>mantra, spoken after the estimable revenge-seeker finally achieved his
>retributive goal: "I have been in the revenge business so long, now that
>it's over, I don't know what to do with the rest of my life."
>
>In killing Osama bin Laden, the United States may or may not have achieved
>justice; we have definitely obtained a measure of revenge. But it remains to
>be seen what we shall do, and what others will do, with the rest of our
>lives and theirs.
>
>*David P. Barash is an evolutionary biologist and professor of psychology at
>the University of Washington and a blogger for Brainstorm. Judith Eve Lipton
>is a biologically oriented psychiatrist. Their most recent book, *Payback:
>Why We Retaliate, Redirect Aggression, and Seek Revenge, *has just been
>published by Oxford University Press.*
>
>-- 
>******************************************
>Michael Balter
>Contributing Correspondent, Science
>Adjunct Professor of Journalism,
>New York University
>
>Email:  [log in to unmask]
>Web:    michaelbalter.com
>NYU:    journalism.nyu.edu/faculty/michael-balter/
>******************************************
>
>"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor
>have no food, they call me a Communist." -- H�lder Pessoa C�mara
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager